Pro Gun Control Rep. Seth Moulton Doesn’t Know What Due Process Is

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

repmoultonguncontrol

Rep. Moulton, acting like this gun is the same as an AR-15 after the Orlando shooting.

Did you know that someone could make it all the way to Congress and be in a position to try and force through police state gun control bills that essentially light the 2nd Amendment on fire… without even knowing what due process is?

Via Twitchy:

Let’s leave aside the whole issue of Rep. Seth Moulton posing in Iraq with the military-issue rifle he says shouldn’t be legal on U.S. streets. What we really want to know is, does he actually know anything about due process?

As Twitchy noted, reporters were stunned by the unprecedented behavior in the House Wednesday night, relaying that people were actually screaming in the gallery as Speaker Paul Ryan tried to restore order…

So, after people started being removed for disorderly conduct, Rep. Moulton sent out this ignorant Tweet:

I mean… just… isn’t it kinda beyond sad someone can make it all the way to Congress and not know what due process is?

Don’t we wish…

Read more about Rep. Moulton’s gun control “sit-in”: CRYBABY DEMOCRATS THROW TEMPER TANTRUM, HOST SIT-IN ON HOUSE FLOOR OVER GUN CONTROL

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Piper McGowin of The Daily Sheeple.

Piper writes for The Daily Sheeple. There’s a lot of B.S. out there. Someone has to write about it.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
[yottie id="4"]

40 thoughts on “Pro Gun Control Rep. Seth Moulton Doesn’t Know What Due Process Is”

  1. Moulton was USMC and has now gone Leftist. I am sad for him, he has obviously developed a mental illness and has abdicated his oath to “..support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” He advocates that the US take in more Syrian “refugees.” He is now a target, just like the rest of the Liberals.

    1. Do you really think that a guy who voluntarily signed up to murder Iraqis on the orders of politicians for a personal paycheck and to pad the profits of banksters and MIC corps really ever gave a crap about “defending the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”? We’re all Iraqis now…

        1. So is it the normal tendency of these folks, once removed from “servicing” crony elites to themselves seek power over others, including unconstitutionally disarming them, via public office like Seth Moulton?

          1. Nope, Don’t know many who are or who have run for office once they got out of the service. I only know of one personally, and he is for smaller government not bigger, unfortunately he wasn’t elected.

          2. In his quest for smaller gov’t, has he declined to accept his gov’t pension/bennies in favor of undertaking a vocation of earning money via voluntary, market based transactions? Just curious.

          3. Apparently, contrary to your understanding –Not everyone who serves in the military receives ‘benefits’ when they get out, not everyone serves 20 or 30 years to get the retirement pay.

            There are actually way more that get out way before the 20 or 30 year mark than actually stay in and retire for the benefits.

    2. He most likely was giving a passing grade in High School Social Studies/ history because his teachers were libtards that didn’t know history very well themselves, or were under extreme school administrative pressure to pass students that passed state standardized test ( only need to pass at 30% correct… yep that is correct) to be inline with grading procedures, and save money for the district.

      Schools are not reimbursed in cost for students that do not pass classes. Students that need to repeat courses are expensive to a schools bottom line. Therefore social studies is not considered that important to have a good grasp of.

      1. Not exactly. The President ordered the armed forces to deploy, and a Declaration of War is not required. So, every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine was acting in accordance with their oath – at the direction of the President. This is part of the conversation regarding the President’s authority to commit troops without (prior) Congressional approval or a Declaration of War, as long as the President informs Congress within a specified amount of time. In instances such as these, Congress has never gone against or refused to provide material support to the armed forces who have already been ordered to deploy.

        1. The declaration is required in the absence of an attack on American territory. The War Powers Act only give the president authority to act in defense. The Constitution was never amended to make the “law” that you are speaking about lawful. Only Congress has the authority to declare war, and the president usurps that authority every time he deploys troops with out said declaration. Congressional approval cannot replace or supercede their duty to declare war. The Constitution also limits appropriations to an army to two years, and continuing approvals are a violation of that.
          It is only Americans’ ignorance of the Constitution and their cowardice at home that prevents continuous trials of public servants for treason.

        2. The president doesn’t have the authority to issue orders to the military until after the Congress has declared war, per the War Powers Act, except in defense, and we haven’t done that since 1812.

      1. There are some HUGE differences between an individual’s personal debt and Government debt. The individual is responsible for paying their own bills, but the government is spending money that they take/tax from the citizens in order to provide for the “common good.” There are economic points that say some gov debt is healthy, but the government is not accountable for its runaway spending exploding debt and they are not being responsible to the citizens. Its past time that gov spending got reigned-in, as we face debt default – and whatever solution that the irresponsible and corrupt government officials come up with that is surely to cost the taxpayers more. Individuals and the government should, but won’t, restrain their spending to within their means. The consequences of an individual’s irresponsibility are nothing compared to a government’s irresponsibility.

        1. The government is spending money that never existed, but was created in the form of Federal Reserve bonds. The current national debt, regardless of whether it is $20 trillion or over $200 trillion when mandates and derivatives are included, will never be paid. If they try to pay it off by printing currency, we will make the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe look like a picnic. I don’t really care, because I won’t mind selling 5 digit gold and 3 digit silver, to buy what everyone went into hock to buy with plastic, for pennies on the dollar.

          1. You have hit on a very key point, the “inability to delay gratification.” Most Americans can’t do it on their own, are encouraged/brainwashed to spend as much as they can as fast as they can, and our government spends to appease the restless and entitled (by conditioning) masses from rising up in rebellion. The government and consumer marketing has conditioned people to satisfy every whim, regardless of their actual ability to pay – and the masses have taken the bait. Now look what we have; not just financial irresponsibility, but moral, ethical, and cultural decay as well.

          2. Most people don’t need anything more than the empowerment of virtually unlimited debt extension via the credit card. Many years ago (before I was married and divorced), I had “store” credit cards from Sears, Penny’s, Ward’s, and Chevron. I have never had a conventional credit card, although Citibank has offered me a $20,000 line of credit, twice. I have always been a manic saver, reluctant to spend disposable income rather than save it. I save it by spending it on PMs, which never see the inside of a bank. In this way, I can afford those things I really want and need without the need for going into debt.

  2. Shouldn’t surprise anyone that this guy is ignorant of due process. Most of our elected officials are. Hell, they don’t even read the bills they vote on. There’s no time for stuff like that; they’re too busy fundraising and schmoozing with lobbyists when they’re not campaigning for reelection.

  3. He, who swore to uphold and defend the constitution as a soldier and a legislator, has become an enemy of the law he swore to protect.
    It seems like it is gerring closer and closer to 2nd ammendment time.

    1. He doesn’t know the US Constitution. He swore to something he doesn’t get. He most likely was giving a passing grade in High School Social Studies/ history because his teachers were libtards that didn’t know history very well themselves, or were under extreme school administrative pressure to pass students that passed state standardized test ( only need to pass at 30% correct… yep that is correct) to be inline with grading procedures, and save money for the district. College professors I hate to say but, in social studies grade on how well you agree with them.

      Schools are not reimbursed in cost for students that do not pass classes. Students that need to repeat courses are expensive to a schools bottom line. Therefore social studies is not considered that important to have a good grasp of.

      1. As Jefferson said,”The tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of Patriot and tyrants”.

        1. Jefferson wrote that in a letter to William Stephens Smith from Paris on November 13, 1787, almost two years before the draft of the second amendment was transmitted to the state legislatures for their ratification, so it couldn’t have anything to do which something he wasn’t involved in, being out of country. The correct rendering of the quotation is
          “(T)he tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

          1. Well if you are saying that the 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with guarding Liberty and the means to defeat tyrrany you are very wrong.

          2. You are an arogant asshole who wouldn’t say that if you were in front of me and if you did you would get the horseshit you are full of beat out of you. Our discussion is ended.

          3. You are an ignorant jackass that thinks that might makes right. You wouldn’t get more than one hit in before you’d know what a bullet wound feels like, and it wouldn’t necessarily be inflicted by me, but by one of the other second amendment exercisers I live with. You never were engaged in a conversation, rant being your highest form of discussion.

  4. Hmmm some guy above claims to be a lawyer(esquire) and believes due process begins at miranda? Wrong. Davis v Passman is a classic due process case and miranda had nothing to do with it. So people who write articles and people who have law degrees also don’t believe what due process is. Nice smug attitudes folks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.